Gratitude, Compulsion, Idiocy or Nobility?

[Kumar]

Language only works if people agree upon a consistent use of the symbols in the exchange set, if an individual continually uses a symbol in an inconsistent way then that does not further communication.

As I said Kumar it is easy to resolve instead of 'true religion' or 'religion', you can use one of the phrases you have explained as being your meaning

When there can be difference in KING and King, Concept and entity, 'true religion' or 'religion' can not be one term

 

[Kumar]

Kumar,
there are constants in the universe, they control the interaction of particles and light waves.
If these constants were to vary then it would show in the spectral lines of distant stars.

Guess what?

As far back as we can see the constants of nature are invariant, in all directions

In a car e.g., metal can be constant but not its make up & features.

 

[Kumar]

Kumar,
We all live in nature all the time...

Yes but still environment(also nature) remain under contant change. Otherwise, why need of the time is called.

 

[Kumar]

There is 'no true nature' when it comes to organisms that have anything other than instinctual behavior.

We need to understand, who is responsible in making us modern.

 

[Kumar]

A vague hand wave without definition and explanation is not an answer

What can I do, if difference in POVs is there. We can just keep shut.

 

[Kumar]

Even less of an answer much less an explanation

veg or non veg, voilent or peaceful, live & let live, survival, might is right, survival of fittest, nature balances itself etc. should only be the basic nature's rules and a basic of all other secondary nanutre's rules.

 

[fagin]

Then where did all those dinosaurs go?

To hell or heaven.

can this thread sink any lower?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

can this thread sink any lower?

Well, we haven't discussed how homeopathy factors into this yet...

 

[Kumar]

Well, we haven't discussed how homeopathy factors into this yet...

Do not expect any more. It had gone to heaven.

 

[bruto]

To hell or heaven.

A dinosaur heaven is childish nonsense, but a dinosaur hell is utterly demented.

 

[Peregrinus]

Dang, Kumar! You're still shunning the omnivores!

 

[JayUtah]

To hell or heaven.

Wow, not only did you manage to completely miss the point of the question, you managed to miss it in a particularly stupid way. With this answer you've convinced me that you don't even believe your own nonsense.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

A dinosaur heaven is childish nonsense, but a dinosaur hell is utterly demented.

Wait a minute... is the coal and gasoline we burn made from good or bad dinosaurs?

What if global warming is caused by all the pent-up bad dinosaur karma we're releasing into the aether?

 

[Kumar]

Wow, not only did you manage to completely miss the point of the question, you managed to miss it in a particularly stupid way. With this answer you've convinced me that you don't even believe your own nonsense.

Where they can go after their extinction?

 

[Kumar]

Even worse, they're straw men. "Survival of the fittest" is merely an observation on how things tend to work out. The organism or species most likely to survive some set of circumstances is the one best equipped to endure those circumstances. What constitutes best equipment depends on the circumstances.

But phrases like "might makes right" and "live and let live" imply moralizations or moral obligations that simply don't have meaning when evaluating the laws of nature. "Might makes right" tries to say that because I'm bigger and stronger than you, whatever I might choose to do to you must be morally just. In fact my ability to enforce my will upon you has nothing to do with whether that will is just. The moral justification for keeping animals for food doesn't derive exclusively from our mere ability to do it.

Conversely "live and let live" suggests a moral framework where each species can and ought to live completely independent of one another. We agree it's morally desirable to invoke this policy where possible. But that doesn't imply it's always possible or always a moral absolute. If my living requires the use of other organisms -- which it does -- then I cannot simply let live. My living and its living are now practical opposites and therefore the maxim can't possibly be a moral absolute.

Very well said. However former can attract any number of killing whereas later, minimum killing just for basic need. By taking few foods which I indicated previously, one can achieve minimum voilence.

 

[JayUtah]

Where they can go after their extinction?

They just die, Kumar. They don't "go" anywhere. Religious platitudes of rewards or punishments in some afterlife are not concepts in nature. Animals (and plants) having a soul to subject to any of that after death is a religious concept -- not a nature concept. Your religion may talk about it, but that's an opinion applied to nature, not something that actually derives from nature or is in any way a part of it. You can't seem to separate the concept of something being of nature versus somebody giving you his opinion about nature. Your only concept of nature is that which your religion told you to believe.

But my point was that you claimed nature was fair-minded. In fact all the dinosaurs died off, regardless of their place in the food chain or whatever righteous intent you wanted to attribute to one dinosaur caste versus another. And in fact that's one of five near-total extinction events our planet has endured throughout its lifetime. Nature is harsh, and it is under no obligation to coddle any species, no matter how noble your religion tells you it is, or how deserving of divine preservation.

 

[JayUtah]

Very well said. However former can attract any number of killing whereas later, minimum killing just for basic need.

No, we already went through this. Minimization of consumption is not a natural law. You're trying to pretend your moral beliefs derive from nature, versus something someone just made up and told you to follow. The whole point of my post is that you keep trying to confound natural law and moral presupposition. They aren't the same thing, and you missed the point once again because you just restated the argument I was refuting.

By taking few foods which I indicated previously, one can achieve minimum voilence.

Nature has no goal toward "minimum violence." It has no goals at all. And it doesn't naturally behave in a way that minimizes violence. Your holier-than-thou attitude has nothing to do with nature. If you want to follow an ascetic lifestyle, that's your business. But don't try to tell us that ascetism is the "natural" way. It obviously isn't. It's just you foisting your religion on everyone else.

 

[abaddon]

Where they can go after their extinction?

Nowhere. After their distinction, they are dead.

 

[abaddon]

Very well said.

I have interacted with Jay for years. Occasionally, he has made an error, and when said error is pointed Jay immediately admits and corrects it.

I have also interacted with you for years. You never admit any error and are unable to explain whatever it might be that you are on about.

Can you see the difference?

However former can attract any number of killing whereas later, minimum killing just for basic need. By taking few foods which I indicated previously, one can achieve minimum voilence.

And that is just utter bollocks.

How about you at least try to write that in English.

 

[Belz...]

It is surprising, how we claim permanency of nature's rules when we even do not understand them.

No, actually that's not surprising one bit.

By your logic, if I watch a movie five times and notice new details and develop new interpretations each time, it's the movie itself that's changing, not my appreciation of it.